The range of laws, regulations and policies that address sexual harassment in federal workplaces was a focus of the briefing sessions for the Committee and of many questions directed to witnesses by Committee members. As noted in an earlier sections of the report (on legal and regulatory frameworks), not all these laws, policies and regulations make explicit reference to sexual harassment, but all have been interpreted to include sexual harassment; therefore the terms have been used interchangeably. As these mechanisms have been addressed in earlier parts of this report, this section focuses on actual complaint processes and witness observations and recommendations related to them.

A. Official Complaints Processes

As noted above, employees in the federal workplace may have a variety of complaints processes available to them, while others may have only one. This section outlines the processes under the Treasury Board policy and the CHRC and outlines the dual nature of processes in place for the CF and the RCMP.

1. Treasury Board

An employee covered by the Treasury Board policy has access to two departmental processes for sexual harassment complaints. The first is an informal process, where the complainant reports the sexual harassment to his or her manager and the manager attempts to facilitate a resolution. The second is the formal complaint process. It is not necessary to go through the informal process before initiating the formal process.

If the employee decides to make a formal complaint, he or she must file it in writing with the “delegated manager”, the senior executive responsible for dealing with harassment complaints. The complaint must include “the nature of the allegations; the name of the respondent; the relationship of the respondent to the complainant (e.g., supervisor, colleague); the date and a description of the incident(s); and, if applicable, the names of witnesses.” The employee must file the complaint within a year of the alleged harassment, absent “extenuating circumstances”, which the policy does not define.

Upon receiving the complaint, the delegated manager must contact the respondent in writing and outline the details of the complaint. The delegated manager may suggest alternative means of resolving the issue. The delegated manager must then determine if the substance of the complaint in fact relates to harassment. If not, the delegated manager contacts both parties in writing and informs them, suggesting possible means of resolution. If the complaint is based on harassment, the delegated manager “determines what efforts have been made to resolve the problem, identifies immediate avenues of resolution if any, and takes appropriate action.” The delegated manager may then refer the parties to mediation, and if this is not successful, will launch an investigation. The investigator must provide the delegated manager with a written report at the conclusion of their investigation. The delegated manager must then review all available information, contact the parties with a decision, and take appropriate action if warranted. The parties must be given a copy of the report. Where a complaint is founded, meaning that the delegated manager has found sufficient evidence to suggest there has been harassment, the complainant is informed verbally whether corrective or disciplinary actions will be taken.

The Treasury Board complaints process is not intended to supersede other possible avenues of recourse. In fact, if a specific complaint is or has been dealt with elsewhere, the process under the Treasury Board policy will be closed. The policy refers employees to bargaining agents, to the CHRA where the harassment is based on a prohibited ground of discrimination (as sexual harassment is, by definition, under the CHRA), and to the Criminal Code where there is an assault. Another option if a unionized employee is unsatisfied with the outcome of a departmental investigation is to file a grievance,[337] a process that will be discussed below.

There are several features that distinguish the Treasury Board policy from the requirements under the Canada Labour Code, beyond their application. First, the Treasury Board policy is often worded in a much more permissive manner than the Code. It sets out “expectations” of employees, managers, and delegated managers, whereas the Code makes mandatory directions to employers. Compare the following:

Under the Treasury Board policy:

[Managers] are expected to intervene promptly when they become aware of improper or offensive conduct and to involve the parties in resolving the problem … They are expected to address any alleged harassment of which they are aware, whether or not a complaint has been made. {Emphasis added}

Under the Code:

The employer will take any disciplinary measures they deem appropriate against any person under the employer’s direction who subjects any employee to sexual harassment.

Second, if a department determines through their investigation that a complaint is unfounded, the department is required — here the language is mandatory — to provide legal assistance to the respondent if the complainant takes the matter to a court or tribunal. There are no such assistance obligations under the Code. Also of note is the fact that no mention of the harassment complaint goes into either party’s personnel file except for a disciplinary letter if disciplinary action is taken.

The Committee also learned that if an employee of the Treasury Board is found guilty of harassment, that information will be recorded in the employee’s personnel file; however if no other incident occurs within two years, the record is expunged.[338] Serge Jetté, Manager of Conflict at Management Services at the Human Resources Division of the Treasury Board Secretariat, said “[a]fter two years, the file is destroyed and there’s no mention.”[339]

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that options be examined by all federally regulated employers to extend the length of time from the current two years for which disciplinary notes related to sexual harassment in the federal workplace may be retained on an employee's file.

Under the more recent Treasury Board policy (2012), complaints processes have not been released yet, but there may be some differences between the 2001 and 2012 policies.

Treasury Board officials described for Committee members a five-step process for responding to sexual harassment complaints:[340] acknowledging receipt of the complaint; reviewing the complaint to ensure “the allegation meets the definition of harassment”; an exploration of options by responsible officials and the complainant jointly; making a decision that is provided in writing to the complainant and the respondent; and restoring the workplace.

Officials also told the Committee about graduated discipline, “which means that the disciplinary action has to be suitable to the actual nature of the issue itself…. [I]t can go from a reprimand to a demotion to dismissal in the end, if the incident is serious enough.”[341]

One witness told the Committee that under the Public Service Employment Act, a manager who is found to have harassed a subordinate can be moved to a new position, but only after the official investigation has reached this conclusion.[342] Steve Gaon, lawyer, mediator and arbitrator, and head of Alternative Dispute Resolution Ottawa, appearing as an individual, told the Committee, “we need to make sure that managers can and should independently authorize investigations where the situations warrant in the absence of formal complaint.”[343]

Other witnesses pointed to the PSES results as an indication of the inadequacies of Treasury Board commitments.

Citing data from the PSES, Robyn Benson, National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, told the Committee that “Treasury Board is not living up to the expected standards of providing a workplace free of harassment and discrimination.”[344] She also indicated that PSAC’s submission to the Committee recommended a review by Treasury Board on the process and outcomes of complaints, settlements and investigations involving sexual harassment, reporting back to the Committee within a year.[345]

2. Canadian Human Rights Commission

The Canadian Human Rights Commission hears complaints of discriminatory practices. Before it will hear a complaint, the CHRC must determine whether it believes the complainant “ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available.”[346] If the CHRC decides to hear a complaint, it may designate an investigator to conduct an investigation, who must then prepare a report for the CHRC. The CHRC may, upon receiving the report:

• direct the complainant to a more appropriate forum if it finds that there were other grievance or review procedures available or that the matter could be more appropriately dealt with under other federal legislation;
• refer the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for an inquiry; or
• dismiss the complaint.

The CHRC may also appoint a conciliator to facilitate settlement. If the parties do settle, they must refer their settlement to the CHRC for approval or rejection. If the settlement is approved, it may be made into an order of the Federal Court, either on the initiative of the CHRC or that of a party to the settlement.

If the CHRC sends a complaint to the Tribunal, the Tribunal must initiate an inquiry. The Tribunal Chairperson will assign a Tribunal member to inquire into a complaint, or if the complaint is sufficiently complex, will assign a panel of three members. The complainant, the alleged perpetrator of harassment, and anyone else the Tribunal member(s) deem appropriate will have the opportunity to appear with or without a lawyer and to present evidence. If the Tribunal cannot find sufficient evidence to support a complaint, the Tribunal deems the complaint unsubstantiated, and the complaint is dismissed. If the complaint is substantiated, the Tribunal may order that the harasser take steps to redress the situation and prevent future occurrences, provide financial compensation to the victim for any lost wages or expenses the victim had to incur because of the harassment, compensate the victim for up to $20,000 for any pain and suffering, and up to another $20,000 if there is a finding that the harassment was willful or reckless. As the case law discussion below indicates, employers, including the Crown, may be held liable for the discriminatory practices of their employees.

One witness recommended that any grievance alleging a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be addressed by adjudication, bypassing the steps where a manager would make the first ruling with respect to the complaint.[347] More specifically, two legal specialists included in a written submission following their testimony that the Public Service Staff Relations Act be amended “to clarify that grievances alleging sexual harassment may be referred to adjudication.”[348]

3. Canadian Forces

a. Administrative Processes

The Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines, which apply to both DND and the CF, describe five stages to an administrative investigation of a harassment complaint: “research and planning, interviews, analysis, the [Harassment Investigator]’s report and finally, the [Responsible Officer]’s decision.”[349] The procedure incorporates a variety of protections for both the complainant and the respondent that are designed to ensure that the process is fair. The Responsible Officer’s decision on the complaint must provide reasons as to whether or not harassment occurred and must be rendered within six months of the original complaint.[350]

While the procedures related to harassment prevention and resolution would normally be identical for civilian and military personnel, there remain some differences in the ways in which incidents of harassment are addressed. In particular, other procedures set out in the National Defence Act that apply only to members of the CF may be relevant.

As a military organization, the CF is fundamentally different from other federal employers. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the CF has a unique and heightened need to maintain discipline amongst soldiers and to ensure that the chain of command operates effectively and responsibly. Therefore, the CF operates a separate military justice system that deals with both disciplinary and criminal infractions. In addition, civilian courts have found that the CF, as an institution, has a higher degree of responsibility than civilian employers to prevent the sexual harassment of a subordinate committed by a superior.[351]

b. Disciplinary Processes

A service offence is any offence under the Code of Service Discipline in the National Defence Act.[352] Service offences include a variety of military disciplinary offences, criminal offences specific to the military, as well as all criminal offences under Canadian law. The Supreme Court of Canada explained in R. v. Généreux the underlying purposes behind the military discipline and justice system:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security. … [T]he military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline.[353]

If the primary purpose of an investigation is to obtain evidence for disciplinary or criminal proceedings against a CF member regarding alleged harassment, the administrative investigation process under the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines may not be used. Disciplinary and criminal investigations in the CF must be conducted according to the Code of Service Discipline in the National Defence Act and the relevant Chapter of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&Os).[354]

If, at the outset of a harassment complaint, the Responsible Officer “instinctively feels” that the matter would more properly be dealt with as a service offence, he or she “should commence a disciplinary investigation and not initiate a harassment investigation.”[355] According to the Military Administrative Law Manual, a Commanding Officer “who suspects that a service offence has occurred should immediately suspend any administrative investigation, consult with the local representative of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) and consider informing the appropriate [Military Police] authorities.”[356] Nevertheless, a previous harassment investigation does not preclude the possibility of a disciplinary or criminal investigation at a later date.

The Committee was also advised that if a commanding officer has any doubt about whether the process should be administrative or disciplinary, “it is the commanding officer’s responsibility to obtain legal and/or military police advice before taking any action.”[357]

By way of example, the Military Administrative Law Manual points out that harassment of a subordinate constitutes the offence of abuse of that subordinate,[358] and is, therefore, subject to the processes outlined under the Code of Service Discipline. Other examples of service offences include offences of disgraceful conduct and any conduct to the prejudice of good order or discipline.[359] The offences of criminal harassment and sexual assault under the Criminal Code are also service offences.

c. Grievance Processes

If a member of the CF believes that he or she has been subject to sexual harassment, the matter also may be dealt with through the grievance procedure under the National Defence Act.[360] The Canadian Forces Grievance Authority website indicates that while the grievance process is available to deal with sexual harassment allegations, a grievance on harassment is difficult to adjudicate without a proper situational assessment and/or administrative investigation by a Responsible Officer. It is therefore important that members consider filing a formal harassment complaint first before they submit a grievance. If the member is not satisfied with the response to his/her harassment complaint, then he/she should officially submit his grievance.[361]

The Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines provide “that a harassment complaint will be closed if a member files a grievance on the same issue.”[362] Therefore, while the preferred procedure would be for any harassment complaint to be dealt with before the filing of any grievance, a member of the CF retains the option of proceeding with a formal grievance instead of a harassment complaint.

The CF grievance process was introduced in the National Defence Act in 1998 and the procedures to be followed are set out in more detail in the QR&Os.[363] Efforts to improve the grievance procedures for military personnel have been included in military justice reform bills before previous parliaments, and are included in Bill C‑15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which passed third reading in the House in May 2013.[364] According to the legislative summary:

The grievance procedure under the NDA [National Defence Act] consists of two levels. A grievance is initially brought before the commanding officer or the next superior officer of the commanding officer of the person bringing the grievance. If the person bringing the grievance is not satisfied with the resolution of the grievance, he or she may submit the grievance to the CDS [Chief of the Defence Staff], who represents the final authority. Before the CDS may begin the review, certain grievances must be referred to an independent, external board for military grievances (the Grievance Board) for its findings and recommendations.

d. Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces

The Committee heard that a further appeal[365] can be made to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, created in 1998 “to increase openness and transparency in the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, and to ensure the fair treatment of concerns raised by Canadian Forces members, departmental employees, and their families.”[366] The Office “is also responsible for reviewing and investigating concerns and complaints from current and former members” of the groups identified above, “who believe that they have been treated improperly or unfairly by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces.”[367] However, the Committee also learned that the results of such a review of investigation of a decision relating to a complaint with respect to sexual harassment would be limited to a recommendation to the CF or DND.[368]

e. Allegations of Sexual Harassment by Members of the Military Police

Complaints about the conduct of members of the Military Police in the course of the performance of policing duties or functions are handled through a separate process set out in Part IV of the National Defence Act.[369] Such complaints are dealt with initially by the Provost Marshall, who is Canada’s chief military police officer.[370] If the complainant is dissatisfied with the Provost Marshall’s decision on the complaint, he or she may ask the Military Police Complaints Commission to review the matter.[371]

Alleged breaches of the sexual misconduct policy are investigated and addressed by the Canadian Forces Military Police. Officials from the Military Police told Committee members that a commanding officer may respond to a complaint with a dual investigation — an administrative one under the sexual harassment policy, and a disciplinary one conducted by the Military Police.[372] However, the administrative investigation would not proceed until the police investigation was complete.[373]

f. Witness Information and Observations

The Committee heard that women working in male-dominated environments, including the CF, often gain acceptance by fitting in,[374] which one witness suggested made reporting harassment even more difficult.

A CF researcher told the Committee that in her interviews, some women in the CF who had experienced harassment indicated that a formal complaint is a last resort,[375] and that individuals who had made such complaints did not always find resolutions to their complaints.[376] The Committee also heard from a representative of the Defence Women’s Advisory Organization, a joint civilian and military organization for women working for DND and the CF that provides a broad monitoring and advisory role, identifying systemic issues and suggesting solutions.[377] She told the Committee that she had not, in her experience, seen reluctance to complain about harassment.[378]

4. Royal Canadian Mounted Police

As noted in the earlier section of the report focussed on legal and regulatory frameworks for addressing sexual harassment, recent changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act have resulted in changes to the complaints process. Details of how the complaints process would change were not yet available at the time of the Committee’s hearings.

However, witnesses described the sharp contrast between complaints processes under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and under the Treasury Board policy. In particular, a representative of the RCMP told the Committee that in contrast to the workplace restoration goal of the Treasury Board policy, the RCMP disciplinary process is focussed on determining guilt or innocence of the person under investigation.[379] According to the witness, this focus results in more rights for the person being investigated, the loss of informal resolution as an option, and, as previously noted, no access to the final report for the victim, as was provided in the 2001 Treasury Board policy.[380]

The union representing civilian employees of the RCMP recommended that any code of conduct hearing related to sexual harassment be accompanied by “a parallel and cooperative investigation …initiated and conducted as though a complaint of sexual harassment had been filed.”[381]

At a public roundtable of former female RCMP officers, one participant, Krista Carle, suggested that in the current complaint system, “…the senior officers are the judge, the jury, the prosecutors and, in some cases, also the offender, or a close personal friend of the offender.”[382]

Another former RCMP Officer, Catherine Galliford, said “[a]n independent investigative body would ensure impartiality with respect to internal investigation and their findings would not be influenced by rank, promotional opportunities, fear, etc.”[383] Ms. Carle said, “[w]hat the RCMP needs is an oversight body, to handle complaints and internal investigations to ensure that they are handled fairly, swiftly and effectively. It is the only solution that will work…and an external investigation body to handle these complaints.”[384]

B. Timeliness of Responses

The Committee heard of guidelines that provide timelines for processing complaints of sexual harassment. For example, Treasury Board officials noted that its new directive indicated that all steps within an investigation under its policy are “normally” to be completed within 12 months.[385] The CHRC official told the Committee that, on average, its investigations take one year,[386] and that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal takes from 9 to 10 months to complete a hearing that has been referred to it.[387] The DND official told the Committee that a founded complaint took about 90 days to process, and that a responsible officer has 180 days to resolve such complaints.[388] The Ombudsman for DND and the CF told the Committee that on average, a harassment complaint takes 90 days to process, and a grievance can take between 18 and 24 months.[389] Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) identified a six-month timeline as its goal for processing complaints.[390] The Canadian Auto Workers, describing a joint management/union anti-harassment committee, indicated that written complaints are generally resolved within 10 working days.[391] A witness from the CBC said that its reported cases had taken between two and four months to resolve.[392] The Ontario Provincial Police witnesses told the Committee that its goal is to resolve complaints within two months, but that more complex cases often take longer.[393]

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission, from whom the Committee heard that its recommendations to the RCMP included a focus on a more timely response,[394] pointed out that investigations in the past have taken between two weeks and four years.[395]

The RCMP Commissioner told the Committee that the gender action plan developed late in 2012 identified improved timeliness as one of its action items.[396] The Committee also heard that timeliness is a priority in “E” Division of the RCMP,[397] where it was also seen as a mechanism to hold commanding officers accountable in the development and maintenance of respectful workplaces.[398] The Union representing civilian employees within the RCMP recommended that the time for the completion of investigations of any complaint of sexual harassment be reduced to three months.[399] The Parliamentary Librarian told the Committee that timeliness is a principle underpinning a recently revised Library of Parliament policy on prevention and resolution of harassment.[400]

Other witnesses identified the importance of prompt resolution of sexual harassment complaints.[401] One witness recommended the development of a policy at the federal level that not only defined sexual harassment, but also established timelines for responses to complaints.[402]

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that Status of Women Canada work with Treasury Board to establish a common set timeline for processing complaints of sexual harassment, based on best practices, so complainants can have timely and efficient resolution of claims.

C. Multiple Processes/Single Points of Entry

As described above, definitions, regulations and remedies with respect to sexual harassment are in several different laws and policies. The Committee heard from witnesses about the relative merits of multiple points of entry for a complainant and of a person or position that is the single point of entry for someone who is considering making a complaint.

The two were not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some examples described the first contact in an organization as having the responsibility to explore with the employee a variety of options for moving forward toward resolution and/or the launching of a complaint. Another example had complaints being made under different mechanisms, but all being reviewed by a single person.[403]

Single versus multiple entry points for complaints are each addressed in greater detail below.

1. Multiple Options for Initiating a Complaint

Several witnesses identified the availability of options for individuals who wish to make a complaint about sexual harassment as a benefit to both the employer and the employee. These benefits include:

• the different roles played by different mechanisms;[404]
• the increased assurance that every complaint is “properly investigated, and that appropriate sanctions are imposed on perpetrators;”[405]
• an increased sense of safety and confidence in bringing forward a complaint;[406] and
• a possible increase in reporting levels to more accurately reflect the actual extent of sexual harassment in any particular agency.[407]

Others told the Committee of more negative results associated with multiple points of entry for making a complaint. These potential problems include:

• confusion;[408]
• inefficiencies;[409] and
• increased time for the complainant to pursue the multiple processes.[410]

Witnesses also described how the selection of one approach might preclude or at least postpone pursuit of other options.[411] In recommending simplification, Christopher Rootham, Partner and Director of Research with the Labour Law and Employment Law Groups of Nelligan O’Brien Payne, said to the Committee: “[a] guarantee that a grievance alleging a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act, including sexual harassment, would be dealt with by adjudication instead of solely by the deputy head would certainly help resolve a lot of that confusion.”[412]

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that any grievances by federal employees alleging a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be addressed by adjudication, bypassing the steps where a manager would make the first ruling with respect to the complaint.

2. Single Point of Entry for Initiating a Complaint

Some witnesses described the value of having a single person (or position) to whom a complaint could be made or concern raised,[413] while others said such a simplified approach was their goal.[414] In all cases, this person would assist the complainant in considering the options available for resolution, generally starting with informal, alternative dispute resolution as described below.

D. Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

Virtually all the employers and unions appearing before the Committee made the case that less formal processes to resolve harassment issues are preferable to more formal approaches. In particular, witnesses told the Committee that early intervention through an informal alternative dispute resolution process has a number of benefits, including:

• a less adversarial process, with the possibility of resolution before there are fixed “positions” taken by either the complainant or the respondent;[415]
• a greater probability of “workplace restoration”;[416]
• continuity of teamwork;[417]
• faster resolution[418] (including a stop to inappropriate behaviour);[419]
• reduced risk of reprisal;[420] and
• a clear message that harassing behaviour is not acceptable.[421]

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that wherever possible, federally regulated employers pursue alternate dispute resolution methods such as dialogue, facilitation and mediation and that these be considered as a first choice for the resolution of disputes relating to sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that Status of Women Canada along with Treasury Board take the lead in promoting the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with sexual harassment complaints.

Other witnesses told the Committee that alternative dispute resolution processes have limitations, including:

• their orientation toward the individual and their consequent failure to address systemic issues;[422]
• their failure to create precedents;[423] and
• their possible exclusion of reported cases from data about sexual harassment complaints.[424]

Another witness noted that unofficial complaints do not have the same impact deterrence effect and do not contribute to the increased comfort for others coming forward with complaints.[425]

An official from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces advised the Committee that the alternative dispute resolution processes had been highly effective in those organizations, but that resources were about to be reduced.[426] He explained that while access to such informal approaches is a requirement for civilians under the Treasury Board policy, there is no obligation to provide the same for military personnel, and that reductions in resources would mean less access for the military personnel.[427]

The Committee also heard that several organizations had introduced confidential reporting of sexual harassment incidents, and that this approach has advantages and limits. Among the advantages cited were increased safety in reporting incidents of sexual harassment,[428] reduced risk of reprisal,[429] and an exploration of options prior to the determination by a complainant to begin any process at all.[430] Limitations identified for the Committee are the inability of the person or persons offering the support to proceed to action without the permission of the complainant[431] and the possibility that the complaint will not be taken as seriously as with a more formal approach.[432]

While such a mechanism could lead to more formal processes, it can also function as the first step in an informal dispute resolution process.[433] The Committee also heard that a confidential process does not preclude maintaining statistics, although names would not be associated with those data.[434]

E. Sanctions for Sexual Harassment

As noted in an earlier section of this report, individuals who face sexual harassment in the workplace are less likely to come forward with complaints if the management response to founded complaints is insufficient in their view.

The Committee heard that sanctions are important because they deliver a message to employees that sexual harassment cases are taken seriously and dealt with appropriately, and they communicate to potential offenders that such behaviour will not be tolerated.[435]

Witnesses agreed that cases of sexual harassment that are determined to be founded should result in some element of discipline for the offending employee.[436] One witness said the most effective discipline involves graduated sanctions that consider the severity of the first incident, and these sanctions should range from suspensions without pay up to, and including, dismissal.[437] Another witness said that having “meaningful sanctions against the offender is one of the most powerful actions that can be taken to prevent sexual harassment.”[438]

However, the Committee heard that some workplaces do not deal adequately with sexual harassers, and this inaction means that they can become serial offenders.[439] One witness spoke of a common approach used by employers, nicknamed “pass the perpetrator”, whereby a sexual harasser is simply moved to another job rather than face sanctions.[440] The Committee was also told that individuals with a pattern of harassing behaviour need more than sanctions; there should be an intervention to educate the person and change his or her behaviour.[441]

Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk, former employee of the RCMP, informed the Committee that according to the current policy, the punishment for transgressions such as sexual harassment is often a maximum of 10 days’ suspension. She hoped that with amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, a finding of sexual harassment will lead to disciplinary action that could include dismissal.[442]

Ms. Carle, another former RCMP officer, told a roundtable: “[o]ften the RCMP has dragged out their complaints and lawsuits instead of taking decisive measures and actions to resolve the issues and to hold the harassers and abusers accountable.”[443]

The Committee also heard from Mr. Kers of the Union of Solicitor General Employees with PSAC, who said

If [sexual harassers] were to be fired, and if that was a clear message that was pronounced in the media and within the department, I think it would embolden and provide courage and support to females who are being harassed to come forward with these issues. Until such time as the government and its various arms are prepared to take that step and deal with this issue in a concrete fashion, change will be very, very slow.[444]

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that meaningful sanctions be applied in order to demonstrate to offenders that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in the federal workplace.

F. Groups in Exceptional Circumstances

The Committee heard of three groups for whom normal policies and complaints procedures are either not accessible or not effective.

The first such group is staff of members of Parliament (MPs). The Committee heard that these individuals are employees of the individual MP hiring them,[445] and are not covered by sexual harassment policies and processes available to staff of the House of Commons itself. While the House of Commons administration is not subject to Treasury Board policies, it follows “best practices in public administration”.[446] The House Administration also offers orientation to new MPs, which includes their responsibilities as employers.[447]

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that Status of Women Canada consider working with the Parliament of Canada to heighten awareness of the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The second group in this category is employees of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada who are working in embassies and consulates in countries where the employment standards and conventional practices may not match those in Canada. Officials from the Department told Committee members that the “global operational reality” calls for the values that underpin respect for cultural diversity, which are similar to those that provide the foundation for a harassment-free workplace.[448] By necessity, training programs for public servants, foreign service officers and employees recruited in other countries is offered online; the training is supported by mission inspections to ensure that workplaces are adhering to federal government standards.[449]

Timothy Edwards, president of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, told the Committee that while Treasury Board policies apply to public servants and foreign national employees of the federal government, almost one third of respondents to an informal survey of the Association’s membership reported that they had been “the target of verbal, physical, or sexual harassment or other abusive behaviour in the workplace, either at headquarters in Ottawa or while posted abroad.”[450]

He also told the Committee that federal policies do not necessarily influence the behaviour of the foreign officials with whom they interact. He explained:

Women often face different challenges from their male counterparts during posting. This is especially true in societies where religious or cultural values are not compatible with Canadian norms of gender equality… Female officers also experience unwanted physical attention and harassment in certain countries where machismo is valued more than sensitivity. This is particularly infuriating where the sources of harassment are local work contacts outside the mission, for example, your counterparts in local government ministries in the countries where we are assigned, or fellow diplomats from partner countries.[451]

In addition, he told the Committee that the position of the foreign service officer “demands that you continue working with them week in, week out, without any option for recourse, redress, or resolution”, with recall the only real alternative.[452]

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that Status of Women Canada work with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada to address the gaps that exist for Foreign Service officers who face sexual harassment in the workplace.

The third exceptional group is correctional service officers. Although sexual harassment is not tolerated among officers or other federal employees, it is more challenging to have an impact on the behaviour of the inmates of the facilities in which correctional service officers work.[453]

Anne-Marie Beauchemin, a Correctional Officer representing the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, told the Committee:

CSC policy states that inmates must be respectful to officers. The … Corrections and Conditional Release Act, also addresses this matter. Unfortunately, intentionally masturbating in front of an officer is not clearly defined and this needs to change. Officers must be given a viable avenue in which corrective measures can be consistently applied.[454]

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers followed up its appearance before the Committee with a written submission with specific recommendations. The recommendations were for amendments to the Corrections Conditions and Release Act to make exposure of genitals to a correctional officer a disciplinary infraction and to specify that informal resolution may be not be feasible for such an infraction and amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to make such acts included in “indecent acts”.[455]